At the end of the movie "Mickey 17", the number 17 following Mickey in the end credits was shaky, first turning into 18, then 19, and finally the number disappeared, revealing the character's real name: Mickey Barnes. Obviously, the director wanted to tell the audience that Mickey is us in front of the big screen, and our mission in this era is to find our own value of existence, rather than being alienated into a dispensable "consumable body" in the industrial society.
Poster of Number 17
It is undeniable that this is a movie that is very close to the mood of the times. At the beginning, it introduces the ins and outs of how Mickey became a "consumable body". First, he failed to open a store, then he borrowed usury, and then the earth's resources were exhausted. It seems that Mickey was careless and did not read the contract clearly, but we all understand that this guy is simply desperate in such a world. Isn't this "difficult to find a job"?
Then, Mickey was confused and mistakenly entered the miserable world. He was either used as a tool for testing poison or thrown into outer space to be exposed to radiation. It was miserable enough, but he was also asked by his so-called "friends" in a joking tone: What does death feel like? Isn't this a true portrayal of "working like a cow"?
Stills from Number 17
We all know who Marshall, played by Mark Ruffalo, refers to. Because he encounters obstacles everywhere on Earth, he has to go to another planet to open up a brand new world. Who else will make people think of? It will also make people smile. Isn't this a replica of "the world is full of uncertainty"?
As for the fact that once the spacecraft landed on the alien planet, it was eager to exterminate the natives. Isn't this the bloody primitive accumulation of capitalism? Seeing the women on the spacecraft as more useful reproductive tools than Mickey Mouse, isn't this a re-emphasis on gender issues? Isn't the challenge of "expendable bodies" to moral ethics the shock and fear that the emerging new technologies bring to the public?
Stills from Number 17
Therefore, rather than saying that "No. 17" is a commercial science fiction film, it is better to say that it is a realistic thriller wrapped in a science fiction coat. Bong Joon-ho has not lost his forte when entering Hollywood, but he has not ignored the ways of the world - the film is not lacking in the anxiety of the times and sharp satire, but the premise is that everything must respect the "correct" value and everything must cater to the "correct" trend.
Therefore, the film takes a sharp turn in the second half, sliding from the profound criticism of "Parasite" to the false happy ending of "Avatar", and the so-called anxiety turns into an insignificant bowl of chicken soup for the soul. Mickey finally has a real name, but all this happens on a distant alien planet and has nothing to do with our world, so the audience should not take it too seriously.
This film has many issues that are more worthy of in-depth discussion and exploration than "working like a beast of burden", but they are often perfunctorily glossed over by the director's feint. Whether it is intentional or unavoidable, outsiders have no way of knowing, but it is indeed a great pity.
For example, what kind of relationship should Mickey 18 and Mickey 17, who were born by accident, have? This was originally an interesting setting that broke the conventions of this film. Unlike the "clones" in traditional science fiction movies, "consumable bodies" not only have different numbers, but also may have different personality traits. 17 is more cowardly, and 18 is more irritable. According to the introduction in the movie, there have been many "different" Mickeys before.
Stills from Number 17
But what's interesting is that the heroine treats them equally and wants to have both 17 and 18. Obviously, this is another promotion of "individualism" - everyone has different personalities and characteristics, and no matter who we are, we should be respected and cared for.
However, it is hard to explain why 18 would choose to sacrifice himself for 17 at the critical moment. Since everyone has unique value that is difficult to replace, 18 seems to have sufficient reasons to choose to preserve himself. In other words, why would 17 or 18 have to take risks for other people on the spacecraft, and why would they care about the creatures on the alien planet?
In fact, this is probably the fatal flaw of the film. The heroine in the film seems to be an omnipotent superman, not only has great martial arts skills, but also has superior political wisdom, and can easily unite the people on the entire spacecraft. But we have to ask, why do people believe that she will not be the next Marshall? What ideas and opinions does she have that are better than Marshall's?
In other words, what unites 17, 18 and everyone else on the spaceship? As a temporary community, what is the "justice" they share? After many twists and turns, the director never gave a clear answer. He just vaguely designed the male protagonist as a vassal of the female protagonist, and then portrayed the female protagonist as another typical Hollywood lone hero - just a gender-swapped version.
Looking back at the key words that appear in the movie, whether it is the "rebellion" on the spaceship or the "peace" pursued by the male and female protagonists, they are all big words and slogans that lack practical connotations, and are no better than the superheroes in Marvel.
Even Bong Joon-ho's best class struggle has become a superficial comedy scene. It does not deeply portray the complex psychology of the lower-class people like "Parasite", nor does it highlight the desperate struggle and mutual harm of the lower-class people like "Snowpiercer", nor does it point out that the ubiquitous atmosphere of the times is the root of the tragedy that the lower-class people cannot escape like "Memories of Murder". Although the satire of reality can be seen everywhere in the whole movie, it is ultimately just a list and accumulation of hot search topics, and the director's previous edge is gone.
In this regard, the nightmare that Mickey 17 has at the end could have been the highlight of the film. Is Marshall really just an incompetent and ridiculous clown in the eyes of the audience? Why does he have so much support and admiration? If Mickey is a "consumable body", then "idols" like him can also be continuously reproduced and produced? Since Marshall is just people's illusory hope, isn't the heroine just as dangerous?
Mickey was saved not because he found a new life path or mastered some profound life enlightenment, but because he was lucky enough to have an omnipotent superhero girlfriend. As Mickey himself said, he didn't know what his girlfriend saw in him. This is probably the fatal weakness of Hollywood-style "individualism" - it advocates loving yourself and being yourself, but cannot answer what kind of correct relationship should be established between individuals and the collective and society. Whether you are 17, 18, or countless "consumable bodies", if everyone really wants to create a new world, then what is the consensus we should uphold?
Stills from Number 17
Bong Joon-ho, who left Korea and tried to integrate into Hollywood, smiled and said nothing, but just gave us a bowl of warm chicken soup for the soul. Workers, drink it, after drinking it, you still have to go to work on time tomorrow, right?
